Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Baguio City

THIRD DIVISION

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, G.R. No. 193250

Petitioner,
Present:
- versus -
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
PERALTA,
AMELIO TRIA and JOHN DOE, ABAD,
Respondents. MENDOZA, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.

Promulgated:

April 25, 2012

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

This is an appeal from the January 18, 2012 Decision[if !supportFootnotes][1][endif] of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 108571 entitled Philippine National Bank v.
Department of Justice, Amelio C. Tria and John Doe which affirmed the Resolution
dated December 26, 2007 issued by the Department of Justice.
The Facts

Respondent Amelio C. Tria (Tria) was a former Branch Manager of petitioner

Philippine National Bank (PNB), assigned at PNBs Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System Branch (PNB-MWSS) located within the Metropolitan Waterworks
and Sewerage System (MWSS) Compound, Katipunan Road, Balara, Quezon City.
On September 21, 2001, MWSS opened Current Account (C/A) No. 244-
850099-6 with PNB-MWSS and made an initial deposit of PhP 6,714,621.13 on October
10, 2001. The account was intended as a depository for a loan from the Asian
Development Bank (ADB) to fund Contract No. MS-O1C.
To withdraw from the account, PNB checks must be issued and three signatures
securedone signatory each from MWSS, Maynilad Water Services, Inc. (MWSI), and the
contractor, China-Geo Engineering Corporation (China-Geo).[if !supportFootnotes][2][endif]
On April 16, 2003, C/A 244-850099-6 became dormant with a balance of PhP
5,397,154.07.[if !supportFootnotes][3][endif]
In the meantime, Tria requested a listing of the dormant accounts of PNB-
MWSS and borrowed the folders of MWSS and C/A 244-850099-6.[if !supportFootnotes][4][endif]
On one occasion, Tria also inquired about the irregularities involving managers checks
committed by the banks former branch accountant.[if !supportFootnotes][5][endif]
On April 22, 2004, PNB-MWSS received a letter-request from MWSS
instructing the deduction of PhP 5,200,000 (plus charges) from C/A 244-850099-6 and
the issuance of the corresponding managers check in the same amount payable to a
certain Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyes. The letter-request was purportedly signed and approved
by the duly authorized signatories of MWSS. Hence, C/A 244-850099-6 was re-activated
in light of the letter-request.[if !supportFootnotes][6][endif]
The letter-request, supporting documents, and Managers Check Application
Form were then evaluated by the banks Sales and Service Officer (SSO), Agnes F.
Bagasani, who found the same to be in order.[if !supportFootnotes][7][endif]

Edsel B. Francisco (Francisco), who was also designated to perform the tasks
of a Fund Transfer Processor (FTP), likewise verified the letter-request and the
documents from the MWSS Current Account folder of the bank. He then effected the
transaction requested by debiting C/A No. 244-850099-6 for the purchase of a Managers
Check payable to Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyes and prepared a Batch Input Sheet listing the
supporting documents for the transaction together with the other transactions for that
day.[if !supportFootnotes][8][endif]

Managers Check No. 1165848 was, thus, prepared and issued in the name of Atty.
Rodrigo A. Reyes (Atty. Reyes) for the amount of PhP 5,200,000 (five million two
hundred thousand pesos).[if !supportFootnotes][9][endif]

On April 26, 2004, PNB-MWSS received cash delivery from PNBs Cash
Center in the amount of PhP 8,660,000.[if !supportFootnotes][10][endif] Nonetheless, at around
11:00 a.m. of the same day, respondent Tria accompanied Atty. Reyes in presenting
Managers Check No. 1165848 to PNBs Quezon City Circle Branch (PNB-Circle) for
encashment and told PNB-Circles SSO, George T. Flandez (Flandez), that PNB-MWSS
had no available cash to pay the amount indicated in the Managers Check. He also
informed Flandez that Atty. Reyes was a valued client of his branch and was in a hurry to
leave for a scheduled appointment.[if !supportFootnotes][11][endif]
To confirm the issuance of Managers Check No. 1165848, Flandez called
PNB-MWSS and talked to its Sales and Service Head, Geraldine C. Veniegas
(Veniegas).[if !supportFootnotes][12][endif] Veniegas confirmed that PNB-MWSS issued a
managers check in favor of Atty. Reyes and sent a letter-confirmation through e-mail to
PNB-Circle.[if !supportFootnotes][13][endif]

While waiting for the confirmation, Flandez interviewed Atty. Reyes. Atty.
Reyes told Flandez that he was an MWSS contractor and the amount covered by
Managers Check No. 1165848 represented the proceeds of his recent contract with
MWSS. Atty. Reyes then showed his drivers license and Integrated Bar of the Philippines
identification card to Flandez and wrote the numbers of these cards on the back of the
managers check.[if !supportFootnotes][14][endif]
Upon receiving confirmation from PNB-MWSS regarding the managers check, Flandez
went to the Cash Center of PNB-Circle to pick up the cash requisition. Tria and Atty.
Reyes, however, followed him with Tria telling Flandez: Pirmahan ko na lang tong
check, George. Identify ko na lang siya kasi nagmamadali siya. Dito na lang i-receive.
For security kasi nag-iisa lang siya.[if !supportFootnotes][15][endif] Tria then placed his signature
on the check above the handwritten note PAYEE IDENTIFIED AMELIO C. TRIA.[if
!supportFootnotes][16][endif]

In August 2004, Veniegas, the Sales and Service Head of PNB-MWSS, observed that
Tria showed sudden concern with the Minutes of the Meeting dated August 6, 2004 even
if he was no longer involved in the operations of the bank. Tria reminded her to prepare
the Minutes of the Meeting. Tria then made revisions therein.[if !supportFootnotes][17][endif] After
the revised Minutes of the Meeting had been signed by all the attendees, Tria sought to
further amend the Minutes, as follows:
9. For your information, BM Tria, per delineation of functions has no approving authority
except in the opening of current and savings account. The BM is purely on marketing
clients and giving services to existing and new clients. Sometimes, we are requesting his
assistance like:

[if !supportLists]- [endif]represent/follow up our operational needs in the

Head Office;

[if !supportLists]- [endif]handles client complaints;

[if !supportLists]- [endif]assists in emergency cash requisitions;

[if !supportLists]- [endif]assists in accompanying valued client/clients to

QC Circle Branch for encashment of MCs merely to identify the
bearer/payee and confirmation of the MC whenever we are short in
cash;

[if !supportLists]- [endif]we usually seek some advice and strategies on

handling clients complaints and on other operational matters.[if
 !supportFootnotes][18][endif]

On November 1, 2004, Tria retired as PNB-MWSS Manager under PNBs

regular retirement plan.[if !supportFootnotes][19][endif]

On February 2, 2005, Zaida Pulida (Pulida), the MWSS employee in charge of C/A No.
244-850099-6,[if !supportFootnotes][20][endif] inquired about the accounts outstanding balance.
While she was trying to reconcile the records of MWSS and PNB, she inquired about a
debit entry dated April 22, 2004 to C/A No. 244-850099-6 in the amount of PhP
5,200,000.

Veniegas verified that PhP 5,200,000 was indeed debited and was encashed
using Managers Check No. 1165848 in favor of Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyes. Veniegas also
attempted to retrieve the files for the transaction on April 22, 2004 but discovered that the
duplicate copy of Managers Check No. 1165848, the managers check application form
and the letter of authority were all missing.[if !supportFootnotes][21][endif]

Pulida notified Veniegas that MWSS did not apply for the issuance of the managers
check payable to Atty. Reyes. Upon verification with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, it was discovered that there was no Rodrigo A. Reyes included in its
membership roster. Further, upon inspection of the PNB-MWSS microfilm copy of
Managers Check No. 1165848, it was shown that the check was negotiated and encashed
at the PNB-Circle on April 26, 2004 and was annotated with ok for payment per
confirmation and approval of PNB MWSS by Tria on the dorsal portion of the check.[if
!supportFootnotes][22][endif]

On February 14, 2005, MWSS wrote the new Branch Manager of PNB-MWSS, Ofelia
Daway, about the unauthorized withdrawal from their PNB C/A No. 244-850099-6.[if
!supportFootnotes][23][endif]
MWSS expressed surprise at the withdrawal of PhP 5,200,030 from
its account when it had not issued any PNB checks. The MWSS letter also stated that:

Our contractor has already submitted their final billing and we expect to withdraw the full
amount deposited to the said account within a months time. We therefore demand the
refund or restoration within five (5) days after receipt of this letter of the amount of
P5,200,030.00 to PNB Account No. 244-850099-6 representing the amount withdrawn
without MWSS authorization/instructions. Otherwise, we will use all the legal means
available to MWSS to recover the amount.

PNB conducted its own investigation and, at its conclusion, sought to hold Tria liable for
qualified theft.[if !supportFootnotes][24][endif]
Employees of PNB-MWSS, Veniegas, Bagasani, and Francisco, and PNB-Circles SSO,
Flandez, executed separate complaint-affidavits to recount the circumstances of the
issuance and encashment of Managers Check No. 1165848, and accused Tria guilty of
qualified theft.

Tria, via his Counter-Affidavit, contended that (1) there was no taking of personal
property; (2) there was no intent to gain on his part; (3) the personal property does not
belong to PNB even if it is the depositary bank; (4) there was no grave abuse of
confidence on his part; and (5) his alleged identification of the payee is not the operative
act that triggered the payment of the managers check by the PNB-MWSS Branch.[if
!supportFootnotes][25][endif]
Instead, Tria argued that it was Flandez who approved and paid the
managers check even beyond his authority. He added that it was the other bank
employees who should be held liable for the loss.

In his Reply-Affidavit dated February 20, 2006, Flandez contradicted Trias claim that
Tria left PNB-Circle immediately after signing Managers Check No. 1165848. According
to Flandez, Tria helped Atty. Reyes count the PhP 5,200,000 by the bundle and even
asked the banks security guard for a plastic bag for the cash.[if !supportFootnotes][26][endif]

Following a preliminary investigation, the Assistant City Prosecutor issued a Resolution[if

!supportFootnotes][27][endif]
on August 15, 2006 stating that Trias identification of the payee did
not consummate the payment of the Managers Check. Rather, it was held, the
consummation of the payment occurred during Flandez approval of the encashment. The
Resolutions dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Undersigned respectfully recommends the

approval of the above and the dismissal of the charge for Qualified Theft against
respondent Amelio C. Tria due to lack of evidence and probable cause.

PNB moved for reconsideration but was denied in a Resolution [if

!supportFootnotes][28][endif]
dated April 13, 2007.
Undaunted, PNB filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and
prayed for the reversal of the August 15, 2006 and April 13, 2007 Resolutions issued by
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCP).
On December 26, 2007, then Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzales issued a Resolution
dismissing PNBs petition for review. PNBs motion for reconsideration was denied in a
Resolution dated February 27, 2009.
PNB sought recourse before the Court of Appeals (CA). It alleged that both the OCP and
the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to consider that Tria and Atty.
Reyes/John Doe conspired in committing the crime of qualified theft; and the DOJ
committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to consider the existence of probable cause
in the instant case and affirming the OCPs findings that there is no probable cause to hold
Tria and Atty. Reyes/John Doe for trial in the crime of qualified theft.
The Ruling of the CA

On January 18, 2010, the CA decided in favor of Tria. In affirming the DOJ Resolution
issued by Secretary Gonzales, the CA took notice of how Managers Check No. 1165848
was issued and paid by PNB after the verification made by PNBs own employees.
The CA ruled that probable cause against Tria and Atty. Reyes was not established since
the employees of PNB made the encashment after their own independent verification of
C/A No. 244-850099-6. Further, the CA deferred to the DOJs determination of probable
cause for the filing of an information in court as it is an executive function and ruled that
the resolutions were not reversible as PNB was unable to show that these resolutions of
the DOJ were tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The CA, thus, affirmed the OCPs
finding that Trias identification of the payee did not by itself bring about the payment of
the subject managers check and concluded that the element of taking of personal property
belonging to another without the owners consent is lacking since PNB consented to the
taking by Atty. Reyes.
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Resolutions dated December
26, 2007 and February 29, 2009, issued by Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzales in I.S. No.
05-10093. are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

PNB, thus, questions the Decision of the CA by the instant appeal.

The Ruling of this Court

We find petitioners appeal meritorious.

According to the CA, it was the approval of the request for the issuance and for the
encashment of the managers check by the employees of PNB that resulted in the
withdrawal of the amount encashed by Atty. Reyes/John Doe. Hence, according to the
appellate court, the OCP was correct in not pursuing the criminal case against Tria.
Clearly, the CA in the instant case erroneously overlooked vital factual circumstances
that call for a reversal of its ruling.
While discretionary authority to determine probable cause in a preliminary
investigation to ascertain sufficient ground for the filing of an information rests with the
executive branch,[if !supportFootnotes][29][endif] such authority is far from absolute. It may be
subject to review when it has been clearly used with grave abuse of discretion.[if
!supportFootnotes][30][endif]
And indeed, grave abuse of discretion attended the decision to drop
the charges against Tria as there was more than probable cause to proceed against
him for qualified theft.
It must be emphasized at the outset that what is necessary for the filing of a criminal
information is not proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person accused is guilty of the
acts imputed on him, but only that there is probable cause to believe that he is guilty of
the crime charged.
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, are such facts as
are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that
the accused is probably guilty thereof.[if !supportFootnotes][31][endif] It is the existence of such
facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the
crime for which he is to be prosecuted. [if !supportFootnotes][32][endif] A finding of probable
cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been
committed and that it was committed by the accused.[if !supportFootnotes][33][endif]
The acts of Tria and the relevant circumstances that led to the encashment of
the check provide more than sufficient basis for the finding of probable cause to file an
information against him and John Doe/Atty. Reyes for qualified theft. In fact, it is easy to
infer from the factual milieu of the instant case the existence of all the elements necessary
for the prosecution of the crime of qualified theft.
As defined, theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but
without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the
personal property of another without the latters consent.[if !supportFootnotes][34][endif] If
committed with grave abuse of confidence, the crime of theft becomes qualified.[if
!supportFootnotes][35][endif]
In prcis, qualified theft punishable under Article 310 in relation to
Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is committed when the following
elements are present:
1. Taking of personal property;

2. That the said property belongs to another;

3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;

 4. That it be done without the owners consent;

5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation

against persons, nor of force upon things; and

6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.

In the instant case, the first and second elements are unquestionably present.
The money involved is the personal property of Trias employer, PNB. Trias argument
that the amount does not belong to PNB even if it is the depositary bank is erroneous
since it is well established that a bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its
clients.[if !supportFootnotes][36][endif]
The third element, intent to gain or animus lucrandi, is an internal act that is presumed
from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. [if
!supportFootnotes][37][endif]
This element is immediately discernable from the circumstances
narrated in the affidavits submitted by PNBs employees. In particular, it is plain from
Trias misrepresentation that the person he called Atty. Reyes was a valued client of PNB-
MWSS who was authorized to encash the managers check and his act of revising his
functions as stated in the Minutes of the Meeting referred to by Veniegas to make it
appear that he had been tasked with accompanying valued client/clients to QC Circle
Branch for encashment of MCs merely to identify the bearer/payee and confirmation of
the MC whenever we are short in cash.
The fifth element is undisputed, while the last element, that the taking be done with grave
abuse of confidence, is sufficiently shown by the affidavits of PNB and Trias own
admission of the position he held at the Bank. A banks employees are entrusted with the
possession of money of the bank due to the confidence reposed in them and as such they
occupy positions of confidence.[if !supportFootnotes][38][endif]
It is the existence of the fourth elementthe taking be done without the owners
consentthat is the crux of contention. While the appellate court, together with the DOJ
and OCP, maintains the negative and equates the cumulative acts of the other PNB
employees as the consent of PNB in the issuance and encashment of the managers check,
this Court cannot find itself to sustain such opinion.
On the contrary, the facts portray the stark absence of consent on the part of
PNB for the issuance of managers check payable to Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyes and its
felonious encashment by John Doe/Atty. Reyes in complicity with Tria.
Tria, it must be reiterated, was PNBs bank manager for its MWSS branch. The
check in question was a managers check. A managers check is one drawn by a
banks manager, Tria in this case, upon the bank itself. We have held that it stands on
the same footing as a certified check, which is deemed to have been accepted by the bank
that certified it, as it is an order of the bank to pay, drawn upon itself, committing in
effect its total resources, integrity and honor behind its issuance. By its peculiar character
and general use in commerce, a managers check is regarded substantially to be as
good as the money it represents.[if !supportFootnotes][39][endif] In fact, it is obvious from the
PNB affidavits that the MWSS C/A was deducted upon the issuance of the managers
check and not upon its encashment. Indeed, as the banks own check, a managers check
becomes the primary obligation of the bank and is accepted in advance by the act of its
issuance.[if !supportFootnotes][40][endif]
Taking this fact into consideration, it cannot be denied that the wheels of the
felony started turning days before the misrepresentations made by Tria at PNB-Circle.
And the encashment was a mere culmination of the crime that was commenced in PNB-
MWSS.
The felony of qualified theft started with the use of the now missing falsified
letter-request and supporting documents for the issuance of the managers check and the
re-activation of the MWSS C/A. It was the pretense of an authority from MWSS that
deprived PNB the liberty to either withhold or freely give its consent for the valid
reactivation of the account and issuance of the check. Quoting from Black v. State,[if
!supportFootnotes][41][endif]
this Court held in Gaviola v. People[if !supportFootnotes][42][endif] that such
pretense does not validate a taking:
In all cases where one in good faith takes anothers property under claim of title
in himself, he is exempt from the charge of larceny, however puerile or mistaken the
claim may in fact be. And the same is true where the taking is on behalf of another,
believed to be the true owner. Still, if the claim is dishonest, a mere pretense, it will not
protect the taker.

In more conventional words, this Court sustained the finding of qualified theft
in People v. Salonga,[if !supportFootnotes][43][endif] where the taking was done through the
issuance of a check by the very person responsible for, and in custody of, the said check,
viz:

The crime charged is Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document.

The information alleged that the accused took P36,480.30 with grave abuse of confidence
by forging the signature of officers authorized to sign the subject check and had the check
deposited in the account of Firebrake Sales and Services, a fictitious payee without any
legitimate transaction with Metrobank. Theft is qualified if it is committed with grave
abuse of confidence. The fact that accused-appellant as assistant cashier of Metrobank
had custody of the aforesaid checks and had access not only in the preparation but
also in the release of Metrobank cashiers checks suffices to designate the crime as
qualified theft as he gravely abused the confidence reposed in him by the bank as
assistant cashier. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

Similar to the bank involved in Salonga, PNB was deprived of the discretion to
withhold its consent since, as the circumstances establish, the very person responsible for
the custody and the issuance of the check is the one guilty for its felonious issuance and
encashment, its former branch manager Tria.
Indeed, the pretense made in PNB-MWSS that led to the issuance of the
Managers Check cannot be imputed on anyone other than Tria. His role as the branch
manager of PNB-MWSS who had the responsibility over the functions of the employees
of PNB-MWSS cannot be overlooked. As branch manager, Tria signs managers checks.
He serves as the last safeguard against any pretense resorted to for an illicit claim over
the banks money. The acts of the other bank officials in the MWSS branch in processing
the managers checks pass through the supervision and approval of Tria. Thus, the
processing and approval of the check are the responsibility of Tria.
As such, Tria is duty-bound to verify from the banks client any supposed
authority given for the issuance of a managers check. He was, therefore, duty-bound to
confirm with MWSS whether the letter-authorization for the deduction of P5.2 million
from the MWSS C/A is genuine, legal and binding. Tria is required to exercise the
highest degree of care since the degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of
a good father of a family where the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their
depositors is concerned.[if !supportFootnotes][44][endif] This degree of diligence was wanting in
Trias failure to determine the veracity of said letter-authority considering that the amount
to be deducted is large, with the withdrawal of almost the entire amount of the deposit
leaving only less than PhP 200, more so when the account has been dormant since April
16, 2003.
As standard banking practice intended precisely to prevent unauthorized and
fraudulent withdrawals, a bank manager verifies with the client-depositor to authenticate
and confirm that he/she has validly authorized such withdrawal. Such failure of Tria as
bank manager to verify the legitimacy of the requested withdrawal lends credence to the
accusation that he colluded with Atty. Reyes to feloniously take money from PNB, and
his complicity includes depriving the bank of its opportunity to deny and withhold the
consent for the necessary issuance of Managers Check No. 1165848. It cannot, therefore,
be gainsaid that PNB did not consent to the issuance of the check and its eventual
encashmentwhich both constitute the taking of personal propertyas respondents had
made sure that the bank was rendered inutile and incapable to give its consent. The
fourth element of the crime clearly exists.
Furthermore, a branch manager normally stays at his branch to perform his
functions and duties in such position in said branch except on official business as
prescribed by the bank. Certainly, it is not one of the duties of a branch manager to leave
his office and personally accompany a payee of a managers check it issued to another
branch to encash said check. It is, therefore, unusual and highly suspicious for Tria to
leave his office located in Balara, Diliman, Quezon City and travel to Quezon Avenue
where the PNB-Circle is located to identify a fictitious payee and ensure the encashment
of the check.
Tria could just have waited for a call from the branch manager of the PNB
Quezon City Circle Branch to verify the authenticity of said check. Such extra effort and
unexplained gesture on the part of Tria to provide assistance to Atty. Reyes, a fake
lawyer, to ensure the encashment of the check leaves one to believe that he is in cahoots
with the impostor.
What is more, it is curious that Tria accompanied John Doe/Atty. Reyes to
encash the managers check in another branch under the pretext that his own branch is
short of cash when in fact more than PhP 8 million has just been delivered to PNB-
MWSS. Such misrepresentation can only be considered as an attempt to cover the crime
and pass the blame to other PNB employees, as in fact the CA ruled that Flandez is to
blame. This attempt is further reinforced by the curious case of the missing fictitious
letter-request and its supporting documents, which were last seen in the vault of PNB-
MWSS which can be accessed by Tria. Furthermore, the allegation of Veniegas that Tria
unilaterally and secretly revised the banks Minutes of the Meeting to reflect that he had
no approval authority beyond opening accounts but was specifically requested by the
bank to assist valued clients in encashing checks at the Quezon City Circle Branch shows
an ingenious ploy by Tria to cover his tracks upon the eventual discovery of the theft and
is in contravention of the General Banking Law of 2000.[if !supportFootnotes][45][endif]
Nonetheless, nothing is more damning than the fact that Tria vouched for the
identity of John Doe/Atty. Reyes, even claimed that Atty. Reyes is a valued client of
PNB-MWSS, affixed his signature at the back portion of the check to guarantee that Atty.
Reyes is the true and legal payee, and ultimately guaranteed that the Managers check is
legally effective and valid and everything is aboveboard. PNB-Circle could have verified
from MWSS if the deduction is authorized especially considering that the money will be
deducted from an account of a government corporation. The identification by Tria of
Atty. Reyes as payee precluded and preempted the bank officials from verifying the
transaction from MWSS. Thus, the identification made by Tria impliedly warranted to the
PNB-Circle that said Managers check was validly issued with the consent of PNB, and
that the encashment is legal and warranted.
It must also be noted that Tria likewise made representations to the PNB-Circle
that the Managers check is legal and valid as evidenced by the annotation at the dorsal
portion of the check ok for payment per confirmation and approval of PNB MWSS. The
act of Tria in confirming and approving the encashment of the check by Reyes is the
pretense of the consent given to him by PNB to authorize the issuance of the
managers check that resulted in the taking of PhP 5.2 million from PNB. Tria must,
therefore, be prosecuted and tried before the courts of justice.

While it is truly imperative to relieve a person from the pain of going through
the rigors of trial, it is more imperative to proceed with the prosecution of a criminal case
to ensure that the truth is revealed and justice served when there is a prima facie case
against him.[if !supportFootnotes][46][endif]

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in

CA-G.R. SP No. 108571 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City is ORDERED to file an Information charging Amelio C. Tria
and Atty. Reyes/John Doe for Qualified Theft.
SO ORDERED.